The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that all criminal facts interfere with the operation of the victim by vehicle, but the victim's operation without lawful operation permission, and that the victim's operation constitutes a "business that is subject to protection of interference with business because it constitutes a "business that is against society to the extent that it is not remarkably acceptable in the social life."

B. As to the criminal facts No. 1, the Defendant parked in a place other than the place of violation of spirits, which does not legally problematic and exercise legitimate rights, and thus does not constitute “power” of interference with duties.

In addition, since it is impossible for a victim to operate due to the lack of legitimate operational permission even though the defendant did not park, it is not a crime of interference with business because it is a case where there is no risk that the result will occur.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether a victim's business constitutes a business subject to the protection of interference with business under the relevant legal principles, 'business' subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business that is engaged in occupation or continuously, which is worth protecting from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person, and the contract or administrative act which is the basis of such business does not necessarily have to be lawful. However, if a certain business or activity itself goes against the society to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable in social life due to a serious degree of illegality, it does not constitute "business subject to the protection of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002)" (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, when the damaged person is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it does not have to obtain permission for the operation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Act.